7. Wilson v Wilson Court of Appeal [1991] 1 NZLR 687 [Husband and wife — Matrimonial property — Matrimonial Property Act 1976 (1) Deductible debts — Whether a particular debt has been incurred in the course of a common enterprise carried on by the husband and the wife — Whether ss 20(5)(a) and 20(5)(b) are inconsistent — Whether s 20(2) affects the deductibility of personal debts under s 20(5)(b) — Circumstances in which a personal debt of one spouse is to be met out of matrimonial property — Whether there is a distinction between cases where a spouse pays his or her personal debts out of matrimonial property prior to the hearing and cases where the debts remain unpaid — Matrimonial Property Act 1976, s 20(2), (5) and (6); (2) Division of matrimonial home — Whether there were “extraordinary circumstances” rendering equal sharing “repugnant to justice” — Matrimonial Property Act 1976, s 14; (3) Division of matrimonial property under s 15 — Assessment of contributions under s 18 — Whether a spouse who brings property to the marriage can fairly be said to have created matrimonial property where it is the operation of the statute which converts that previously separate property into matrimonial property — Matrimonial Property Act 1976, ss 15 and 18]

9. Gurusinghe v Medical Council of New Zealand [1989] 1 NZLR 139 [Medicine, pharmacy and related professions — Medical practitioners — Disciplinary proceedings — Medical Council found medical practitioner guilty of four charges of disgraceful conduct and ordered that his name be removed from the medical register and that he pay costs of $20,000 — Charges related to four complainants and were heard together — Whether the charges should have been heard separately — Whether Council’s failure to make some pre-trial disclosure of information to practitioner resulted in a miscarriage of justice — Whether Council’s failure to give reasons had prejudiced practitioner’s right of appeal — Whether misdirection as to corroboration justified a new hearing before the Council — Whether practitioner had been inadequately or negligently legally represented at the hearing before the Council — Whether amount of costs was excessive — Medical Practitioners Act 1968, ss 55, 56 and 58]

10. Re Chase Court of Appeal [1989] 1 NZLR 325 [Damages — Compensatory and punitive — Jurisdiction — Damages for the death of a person who died as a result of personal injury suffered by accident — While executing a warrant to search the deceased’s flat for a shotgun and cartridges, a police officer mistakenly believed that the deceased was holding a shotgun, and shot and killed him — Personal representative of deceased’s estate claimed compensatory and punitive damages from the Attorney-General — Whether claim for compensatory damages was barred by s 27 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 — Whether the bar in s 3 of the Law Reform Act 1936, which prevented the recovery of “exemplary damages” by a deceased’s estate, precluded the recovery of punitive damages; Tort — Remedies — Declaratory judgment — While executing a warrant to search the deceased’s flat for shotguns and cartridges, a police officer mistakenly believed that the deceased was holding a shotgun, and shot and killed him — Police investigated the shooting, a Queen’s Counsel made a detailed report on the investigation to the Minister of Police, and the Coroner commented on the incident at the inquest — Although claims for damages were statute-barred, personal representative of deceased’s estate sought a declaration impugning the conduct of the police — Whether any good purpose would be served by making a declaration — Whether a declaration should be made — Declaratory Judgments Act 1908, ss 2 and 10]

11. Nelson v Dittmer [1988] 2 NZLR 48 [Practice and procedure — Discovery — Particular discovery before proceedings commence — Test to be applied — Insurance company cancelled intending plaintiff’s policies after receiving information that he had made a fraudulent insurance claim — Intending plaintiff believed that a business competitor had been insurance company’s informant — Before commencing defamation proceedings against informant, intending plaintiff sought discovery from the insurance company of the exact words used by its informant — Whether information supplied to insurance company was privileged — whether intending plaintiff was entitled to discovery — whether, if unsuccessful in opposing discovery, insurance company should pay costs — High Court Rules, RR 46 and 299]